Vorlage:Infobox Fluss/BILD_fehlt
Die Grümpel ist der etwa 12,5 km lange linke Quellbach der Kronach in Oberfranken.

Die Grümpel entspringt südlich der Gemeinde Tschirn auf einer Höhe von ca. 606 Metern. Der Bach fließt zunächst südwärts durch ein Waldgebiet. Bei dem kleinen Teich Eisenquelle mündet der Tiefenbach von links in die Grümpel. Östlich von Wilhelmsthal-Effelter durchfließt sie ein tief eingeschnittenes Tal. Bei Steinwiesen-Birnbaum wird sie von links vom Dorfbach gespeist und bei Wilhelmsthal-Lahm mündet von links der Gottlersbach in die Grümpel. Kurz danach (ca. 40 m) fließt ihr rechts der Kugelbach und nach etwa 200 m der Steinbach zu. Südlich von Wilhelmsthal-Hesselbach wird von der linken Seite ihr Wasser durch den Sperlesbach verstärkt. Zuletzt fließen ihr noch von links der Glasbach und der Schindelbach zu. Bei Wilhelmsthal vereinigt sie sich mit der Kremnitz zur Kronach (Mündungshöhe ca. 356 m).
Noch bis Mitte des 20. Jahrhunderts befanden sich an ihrem Lauf eine Getreidemühle sowie eine Sägemühle, die beide nicht mehr in Betrieb sind.

Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc.

Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 553 U.S. 617 (2008), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court reaffirmed the validity of the patent exhaustion doctrine, and in doing so made uncertain the continuing precedential value of a line of decisions in the Federal Circuit that had sought to limit Supreme Court exhaustion doctrine decisions to their facts and to require a so-called “rule of reason” analysis of all post-sale restrictions other than tie-ins and price fixes. In the course of restating the patent exhaustion doctrine, the Court held that the exhaustion doctrine is triggered by, among other things, an authorized sale of a component when the only reasonable and intended use of the component is to practice the patent and the component substantially embodies the patented invention by embodying its essential features. The Court also overturned, in passing, the part of decision below that held that the exhaustion doctrine was limited to product claims and did not apply to method claims.

LG Electronics (LGE) owned several patents on methods and systems for processing information. It entered into two contracts with Intel. In the License Agreement, LGE authorized Intel to make and sell microprocessor products using the patented inventions. Moreover, the License Agreement expressly stated that no license was granted to any third party for combining licensed products with other products (for example, for combining Intel microprocessor products with other parts of a computer). The License Agreement also provided, however, “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, the parties agree that nothing herein shall in any way limit or alter the effect of patent exhaustion that would otherwise apply when a party hereto sells any of its Licensed Products.”
In the Master Agreement, LGE required Intel to give its customers notice that the patent license does not extend to any product made by combining a licensed Intel microprocessor product with any other product (for example, a computer containing the Intel microprocessor products). The Master Agreement also provided that its breach would have no effect on the License Agreement and would not be grounds for its termination. Apparently, LGE was willing to allow Intel’s customers to combine the microprocessor products with products not licensed by LGE, but only upon payment of a further royalty to LGE for the right to do so. This point is not discussed in the Court’s opinion, which recites the facts only in very limited terms because the record was under seal to protect trade secrets.
Quanta Computer purchased licensed Intel microprocessor products and proceeded to manufacture computers containing them. In doing so, Quanta followed Intel’s specifications, which in turn led to practice of the patented methods and making the patented systems that LGE licensed to Intel––since that was the way Intel had designed its microprocessor products. (The trial court found that the Intel microprocessor products were without any reasonable noninfringing use.) LGE then sued Quanta for patent infringement.
Quanta prevailed in the district court under the exhaustion doctrine, but on appeal the Federal Circuit held that the exhaustion doctrine did not apply because of the statement in the Master Agreement that combination products were not licensed, given the Federal Circuit’s 1992 ruling in Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc. that a seller of patented goods could by notice impose a post-sale restraint on its customer’s use of the goods. Additionally, the Federal Circuit held that the exhaustion doctrine did not apply, in any event, to method patents.
In Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc. , the Federal Circuit had held that patent owners could condition the sale of patented goods with a restrictive notice and thereby restrict the disposition of the goods by the purchasers, with the exception of antitrust law violations, such as price-fixing and tie-in restrictions, or violations of “some other law or policy.” More specifically, the Mallinckrodt court had said that, “[u]nless the condition violates some other law or policy (in the patent field, notably the misuse or antitrust law),” patent owners, licensees and downstream purchasers “retain the freedom to contract concerning conditions of sale.” The Federal Circuit went on to say that “The appropriate criterion” in determining whether “a restriction or condition… placed upon the sale of a patented article” is valid “is whether [the patente’s or licensor’s] restriction is reasonably within the patent grant, or whether the patentee has ventured beyond the patent grant and into behavior having an anticompetitive effect not justifiable under the rule of reason.” According to the court, the tests for restrictions and misuse were alike, outside the tie-in and price fixing area: “To sustain a misuse defense involving a licensing arrangement not held to have been per se anticompetitive by the Supreme Court, a factual determination must reveal that the overall effect of the license tends to restrain competition unlawfully in an appropriately defined relevant market.”
But this Federal Circuit test is contrary to many decisions of both the Supreme Court and other courts of appeals. For example, in Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., the Supreme Court addressed the legality of licenses under which royalties were paid on total sales of all products, irrespective of whether the licensor’s patents covered all products. The Court held that such licensing was permissible when the licensor and licensee adopted it for mutual convenience to simplify administration of the license, but it was impermissible for the licensor to insist upon it over the licensee’s opposition. Such conduct was misuse, the Court held, but not an antitrust violation unless the other elements of an antitrust violation were also shown, such as market power. Earlier, in Brulotte v. Thys Co. , the Supreme Court held that it was patent misuse if, without more, a patentee charged royalties that extended beyond the statutory term of the patent. In National Lockwasher Co. v. George K. Garrett Co., the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a patentee misused its patent by requiring licensees to agree not to deal in the technology of the patentee’s competitors. Thus, in these cases, among many others, the Supreme Court and other federal courts had found misuse in cases not involving price fixing or tie-ins, and had not required any rule-of-reason or relevant-market analysis.
Other Federal Circuit decisions followed the Mallinckrodt approach, which was, at the very least, divergent from Supreme Court decisions. Accordingly, when certiorari was granted in Quanta, it was widely surmised that the Supreme Court would overturn Mallinckrodt, which many (including the United States Solicitor General, viewed as inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent.
The Supreme Court unanimously reversed, in an opinion by Justice Thomas.
First, the Court said, the distinction between method and product claims is insupportable. In United States v. Univis Lens Co., the most recent decision of the Court on exhaustion, some of the patents held exhausted were method patents. Earlier, in Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. United States, some patents covered a method of combusting gasoline in an automobile engine––and the exhaustion doctrine was held applicable. Furthermore, because it is easy to write patent claims for the same invention either in method format or apparatus format, the exhaustion doctrine could easily be evaded if reliance on method claims was sufficient to avoid exhaustion: By “including a method claim for the machine’s patented method of performing its task, a patent drafter could shield practically any patented item from exhaustion.”
The Court then turned to the extent, if any, to which exhaustion of the patent rights on the microprocessor products exhausted patent rights relating to the combination products on which LGE had patents. In the Univis case the sale that exhausted patent rights was a sale of an unpatented semifinished lens blank, which subsequent processing turned into a patented finished lens. The Intel microprocessor products were finished commercial articles of commerce, but in this case the trial court had found as a fact that the microprocessor products had no noninfringing use, just as in the Univis case the semifinished lens blanks had no use but to be finished into the patented finished lens blanks. Therefore, the Court found Univis dispositive. In the Quanta Court’s language, in Univis “exhaustion was triggered by the sale of the lens blanks because their only reasonable and intended use was to practice the patent and because they ‘embodie[d] essential features of [the] patented invention.’”
LGE did not challenge the claim that the intended and reasonable use of the microprocessor products was to incorporate them into computers, but it claimed that some noninfringing uses existed: they could be sold overseas, as repair parts, or by disabling the features that made them patented. The Court dismissed these arguments. As for disablement, the Court asserted that the disabled device aspects (“features”) rather than the device that remained must have a noninfringing use, so that disabling them would cause them to have “no real use.” As for foreign or replacement use, the legal test to be looked to was whether the product would perform the patented method or embody the patented product, not whether the use gave rise to infringement liability.
A further reason why sales of the microprocessor products exhausted LGE’s patent rights was that “everything inventive about each patent is embodied in” the licensed Intel products, which “embody the essential features of the [licensed] patents because they carry out all the inventive processes when combined, according to their design, with standard components.” Any point of novelty—that is, respect in which the claimed invention departs from the prior art—is found in the licensed microprocessor products rather than in the combination product of which they are components.
This last aspect of the Quanta opinion is very similar to the doctrine of the Lincoln Engineering case, a doctrine that the Federal Circuit had previously held to be no longer authoritative. Under the Supreme Court’s Lincoln Engineering doctrine, the combination of a newly invented device with a known, conventional device with which the new device cooperates in the conventional and predictable way in which devices of those types have previously cooperated is unpatentable as an “exhausted combination” or “old combination.” Thus, when the Quanta Court said that “everything inventive about each patent is embodied in” the licensed Intel products, which “embody the essential features of the [licensed] patents,” the Court was, in effect, saying that the combination of a novel Intel microprocessor in a conventional manner with an old personal computer is an exhausted combination. Accordingly, no weight would be put on the fact that separate patents had issued to LGE on the inventive device and on the old combination that included it.
LGE’s argument for non-exhaustion sought to invoke the doctrine of General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Electric Co. In that case, the patentee had granted no license for “commercial” amplifiers. Therefore, when a manufacturer licensed only in the “non-commercial” field of use sold an amplifier to an accused infringer, who knowingly resold it in the commercial market, the manufacturer “could not convey to [the accused infringer] what both knew it was not authorized to sell.” By parity of reasoning, LGE said, it had licensed Intel only in the field of manufacturing microprocessor products for combination with specified products and not with other products. But the Court said that was not how LGE had drafted its license to Intel:
LGE overlooks important aspects of the structure of the…transaction. Nothing in the License Agreement restricts Intel’s right to sell its microprocessors…to purchasers who intend to combine them with non-Intel parts. It broadly permits Intel to make, use, or sell products free of the patent claims. To be sure, LGE did require Intel to give notice to its customers, including Quanta, that LGE had not licensed those customers to practice its patents. But neither party contends that Intel breached the agreement in that respect.
LGE points out that the License Agreement specifically disclaimed any license to third parties to practice the patents by combining licensed products with other components. But the question whether third parties received implied licenses is irrelevant because Quanta asserts its right to practice the patents based not on implied license but on exhaustion. And exhaustion turns only on Intel’s own license to sell products practicing the…patents.
The Court appears to be saying that LGE simply licensed Intel to make, use, and sell microprocessor products. LGE expressly stated that no license was granted to any third party for combining licensed products with other products; and LGE made Intel tell its customers about the absence of a license. But LGE did not say to Intel that LGE licensed Intel to make, use, and sell microprocessor products only in the field of microprocessor products combined with other LGE-licensed products (so-called Intel products). There was no explicit field-of-use limitation on Intel’s manufacturing, using, and selling rights––no “magic words.” LGE came close––it said it was not licensing third parties to combine licensed product with other products, and it required Intel to notify customers of that––but LGE failed to go right to the point and expressly deny Intel any license to make microprocessor products that would be combined with other products. Furthermore, for some inexplicable reason the parties, with fatal effect, red-flagged the fact that there still was an exhaustion doctrine: “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, the parties agree that nothing herein shall in any way limit or alter the effect of patent exhaustion that would otherwise apply when a party hereto sells any of its Licensed Products.”
That this was a critical error (for LGE) is confirmed by the Court’s final statements in its opinion:
The License Agreement authorized Intel to sell products that practiced the patents. No conditions limited Intel’s authority to sell products substantially embodying the patents. …Intel’s authorized sale to Quanta thus took its products outside the scope of the patent monopoly, and as a result, LGE can no longer assert its patent rights against Quanta.
Thus, the exhaustion doctrine governed what Quanta could lawfully do with what it bought from Intel. The failure to give third parties a license to combine Intel microprocessor product with other products had no legal significance, because the exhaustion doctrine obviated any need for such a license. Having bought the products from an authorized seller, Quanta didn’t need any license.
Just before closing, the Court added a final note pointing out that the case did not raise, and the Court did not rule on, whether LGE could have enforced a contractual restriction. In footnote 7, the Court commented:
We note that the authorized nature of the sale to Quanta does not necessarily limit LGE’s other contract rights. LGE’s complaint does not include a breach-of-contract claim, and we express no opinion on whether contract damages might be available even though exhaustion operates to eliminate patent damages.
By the same token, the Court said nothing as to specific performance or whether contract rights, if any, could be enforced against Quanta.
The impact of Quanta is problematic, largely because the decision avoided deciding many issues, presumably in the interest of maintaining consensus. (The decision was unanimous.) One academic commented:
It is a very disappointing decision from the Court. It decided so little, and it was such an important case. You are left reading tea leaves.
The Court’s failure to approve or reject the precedent on which the Federal Circuit had relied in its decision in Quanta, Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc., which had limited the applicability of the exhaustion doctrine when a sale was made “conditional,” further contributed to business uncertainty about permissible license restrictions. But, as one commentator observed:
The Supreme Court, in Quanta, was widely expected to rule on whether Mallinckrodt was good law. But the Court sidestepped the issue by narrowly interpreting the license agreement so that it was not a conditional license. …Because the Supreme Court sidestepped the issue, it remains unclear to what extent a patentee can use a conditional license to impose restrictions on downstream purchasers.
To be sure, in Quanta, the Court held that “[t]he longstanding doctrine of patent exhaustion provides that the initial authorized sale of a patented item terminates all patent rights to that item.” But what constitutes “authorization”? The Court did not address the issue of “constructive” authorization—that is, authorization as a matter of law in certain circumstances, whether or not the patentee or licensor likes it or even tries very hard to avoid it. Accordingly, it is uncertain to what extent Quanta undoes Mallinckrodt. That seems to be the unstated message in Quanta, but the Federal Circuit may take an impenitent view, in defiance of the Solicitor General’s views as amicus.
There are a number of important issues that the Court did not address in Quanta. One such omission is the Court’s failure to say anything about the other possible formats that this transaction might have used—such as a sale by a manufacturing licensee with a limitation on its grant, or (alternatively) a sale by the patentee or its licensee with explicit restrictions imposed on the buyer’s freedom to dispose of the product. The Court did not explain whether or in what circumstances these other formats would be legally effective.
The first of these possible formats follows the pattern of the General Talking Pictures case. The second format follows the pattern of the Mallinckrodt case. Under the General Talking Pictures doctrine, a patentee may limit the scope of a manufacturer-licensee’s license to a defined field—such as microprocessors not incorporated into computers—and then the use of those micropressors as computer components is a patent infringement. This is the format that LGE mistakenly thought it was using. Under the Mallinckrodt doctrine, a sale of a patented product subject to a restriction—such as you must not sell this microprocessor for use as a computer component—is a “conditional,” rather than “unconditional,” sale. If the condition is violated the conduct is patent infringement. The exhaustion doctrine does not apply under the rule stated in Mallinkrodt. However, as Quanta seemingly holds, when a restriction is not clearly and explicitly stated the exhaustion doctrine applies.
In a brief to the Supreme Court (at its request) when the petition for writ of certiorari was pending, the US Solicitor General observed that a curious “anomaly” existed between the exhaustion doctrine and General Talking Pictures doctrine:
[T]here is a seeming anomaly in allowing a patentee to achieve indirectly –- through an enforceable condition on the licensee –– a limitation on use or resale that [because of the exhaustion doctrine] the patentee could not itself impose on a direct purchaser, [yet] the distinction is a necessary and explicable result of the Court’s decision in General Talking Pictures.
For reasons that so far have not been explained in any publicly available document, the Government deleted this passage from its subsequent brief on the merits. As the Government brief suggested, on the one hand, the exhaustion doctrine prohibits post-sale restraints on a patentee’s (or its licensee’s) sale of goods, while on the other hand General Talking Pictures permits a patentee to place post-sale limitations on its manufacturing licensee’s sale of goods if the license to manufacture uses the right, magic words. Nothing in the Quanta opinion addresses this “seeming anomaly,” much less attempts to resolve it or synthesize the competing doctrines.
The Court, in a footnote quoted above (the Court’s note 7), expressly refrained from stating any of the following: whether contractual language could overcome, or prevent triggering, the exhaustion doctrine; if so, what language would be effective to do so; and whether the surrounding circumstances would be relevant.
To the extent that the exhaustion doctrine is grounded in considerations of public policy, and to the extent that the interests of the public and third parties (such as Quanta in the Quanta case) are to be considered as well as those of the contracting parties, the courts may be more likely to place limits on whether the parties can by contract make the doctrine inapplicable to the goods that are the subject of their contract. On the other hand, if the policy of the exhaustion doctrine is seen merely as a rule to make sure that downstream purchasers get fair notice that their use of goods whose purchase they are considering will be restricted, courts may be more likely to uphold such restrictions unless they collide with other policies, such as those of competition or antitrust law.
The Court explicitly refused to consider this issue in Quanta. The Quanta court did make clear, however, that it recognized the fundamental difference in law between a sale of patented goods by a patentee and a patentee’s license of another to manufacture the patented goods, which the Supreme Court had explained in United States v. General Electric Co. At the same time, the Court made it clear that LGE had failed to license Intel (the seller to Quanta) in language that invoked the General Talking Pictures doctrine, which could have changed the outcome, as discussed above in the section of this article captioned “Licensing a limited field.”
The House of Lords considered whether contract could trump the similar doctrine against derogation from title in British Leyland Motor Corp. v. Armstrong Patents Co.. This is the doctrine that a seller may not successfully take actions, such as enforcing an intellectual property right, that decrease the value of what the seller has sold to a purchaser. The House of Lords ruled that contract could not be used to lessen the rights of end user purchasers, at least purchasers of consumer products such as motor cars.
In Static Control Components, Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., 615 F.Supp.2d 575 (E.D. Ky, 2009), the district court reconsidered its former decision in this case and granted a judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) in favor of the accused infringer. The court said that the Supreme Court’s Quanta decision “has changed the landscape of the doctrine of patent exhaustion generally, and specifically” required a reversal of the judgment, so that SCCI was not liable to Lexmark for patent infringement.
Lexmark had sought to restrict the refilling of its toner cartridges by relying on the Mallinckrodt doctrine. However, it did not enter into any conventional bilateral contract selling the toner cartridges to the public on a “conditional sale” basis. Instead, Lexmark relied on “shrinkwrap licenses,” and restrictive notices accompanying the products. The court considered these ineffective to prevent application of the exhaustion doctrine, despite Mallinckrodt’s approval of their use.
The court acknowledged that, “[a]s Lexmark points out, the Supreme Court did not expressly overrule Mallinckrodt in its Quanta opinion.” Nonetheless, the court concluded:
After reviewing Quanta, Mallinckrodt, and the parties’ arguments, this Court is persuaded that Quanta overruled Mallinckrodt sub silentio. The Supreme Court’s broad statement of the law of patent exhaustion simply cannot be squared with the position that the Quanta holding is limited to its specific facts. Further, the Federal Circuit relied in part on Mallinckrodt in reaching its decision in LG Electronics, Inc. v. Bizcom Electronics, Inc., 453 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006), the decision the Supreme Court reversed in Quanta. It is also worth noting that the Quanta decision did not mention a single Federal Circuit case.
On the other hand, the court did not consider Quanta to have foreclosed the enforcement of the shrinkwrap restrictions under state contract law. The contract law aspects of the case became moot, however, because Lexmark voluntarily dismissed its claims based on Static Control’s tortious interference with contract.
In April 2015, the Federal Circuit sua sponte called for briefing and amicus curiae participation in an en banc consideration of whether Mallinckrodt should be overruled in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in the Quanta case. The court ordered:
In light of Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 553 U.S. 617 (2008), should this court overrule Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc., 976 F.2d 700 (Fed. Cir. 1992), to the extent it ruled that a sale of a patented article, when the sale is made under a restriction that is otherwise lawful and within the scope of the patent grant, does not give rise to patent exhaustion?

Adam Krug

Adam Krug (born June 6, 1983) is an American professional ice hockey player and more recently a coach. He is currently head coach of the Adrian College men’s NCAA hockey team.
Prior to turning professional, Krug attended Adrian College for two seasons where he served as the NCAA Division III program’s first captain. Krug still holds the Adrian College and Midwest Collegiate Hockey Association scoring records for most points in a season. He was also named to the 2007-08 All-America Hockey Team. Before attending Adrian College, Krug attended Wayne State University where he played two seasons of NCAA Division I college hockey with the Wayne State Warriors men’s ice hockey team.
Prior to taking over as head coach of the Adrian College program, Adam served as an assistant coach for the Indiana Ice from 2012-2014. He also is a Head Skills Instructor for Next Level Player Development. Next Level Player Development specializes in teaching hockey puck handling skills to players of all ages and skill levels.
Adam’s brothers, Matt and Torey Krug are also hockey players. Torey currently plays defense for the Boston Bruins. Additionally, his brother Zak plays college volleyball at Siena Heights University in Adrian, Michigan.

Karen Pickering

Karen Denise Pickering, MBE (born 19 December 1971) is a former freestyle swimmer from Great Britain, who made her international senior debut in 1986. She was first selected to represent her country at the European Junior Championships. Pickering competed in four consecutive Summer Olympics, starting in 1992.
She won her first medal in 1993, at the inaugural 1993 FINA Short Course World Championships in Palma de Mallorca, where she won the gold medal in the 200 m freestyle. With that performance Pickering became Britain’s first Swimming world champion.
She was a member of the British swimming squad from 1986 to 2005 and has a collection that includes 8 World Championship medals (4 gold), 14 European Championship medals, 38 National Championship titles, and a Commonwealth Games medal haul of 13 including 4 gold. The 2002 Commonwealth Games saw Karen win three medals, two gold and one silver, in front of her home crowd, a career highlight which was crowned with the honour of carrying the English flag at the closing ceremony.
For her services to swimming Karen was awarded an MBE in the 1994 New Years Honours List.
Pickering is now the Sports Ambassador for Ipswich in Suffolk and chairs the British Athletes Commission.

Kaltenbrunn (Itzgrund)

50.12472222222210.879166666667269Koordinaten: 50° 7′ 29″ N, 10° 52′ 45″ O
Gemeindebackhaus von 1869
Kaltenbrunn ist ein Ortsteil der oberfränkischen Gemeinde Itzgrund im Landkreis Coburg und Sitz der Gemeindeverwaltung.

Kaltenbrunn liegt etwa 16 Kilometer südwestlich von Coburg auf einem flachen Osthang des Itztales. Östlich des Ortskernes verläuft die Bundesstraße 4. Die Staatsstraße 2278 führt nach Untermerzbach und die Staatsstraße 2204 nach Bodelstadt.
Schon im Hochmittelalter gab es im Itzgrund eine Geleitstraße, die von Nürnberg nach Erfurt führte. An der Straße lag der Ort Bennendorf, der wohl schon im 8. Jahrhundert existierte. Er wurde im 9. Jahrhundert erstmals in den Traditionen des Klosters Fulda genannt, die auf einer Abschrift im Codex Eberhardi aus dem 12. Jahrhundert beruhen. Eine urkundliche Erwähnung gab es 1227 als „Benindorf“. Zwischen 1320 und 1350 wechselte der Ort seinen Namen zu Kaltenbrunn.
Noch im 16. Jahrhundert hatte die Ansiedlung zwei Ortsteile, Gnendorf, dem Kloster Gleusdorf zehntpflichtig und das größere Kaltenbrunn mit dem Untermerzbacher Adelsgeschlecht von Rotenhan als Dorfherrn.
Mit der Erhebung der Untermerzbacher Marienkapelle zu einer Pfarrkirche im Jahr 1439 erfolgte die Einpfarrung Kaltenbrunns dorthin. 1534 führten die Grafen von Rotenhan die Reformation ein. 1675 kehrten sie zur katholischen Kirche zurück. In der Folge wurde 1691 in Kaltenbrunn eine katholische Pfarrei gegründet und nach Abbruch der Wolfgangskapelle zwischen 1745 und 1749 eine Pfarrkirche errichtet. Die Protestanten gehörten ab 1824 zum Gleußener Kirchsprengel.
Die seit etwa 1700 bestehende Klosterbrauerei Kaltenbrunn kaufte 1890 der Gastwirt Heinrich Pfeuffer. 1932 ging sie an Fritz Feder über, 1966 wurde der Braubetrieb eingestellt. Die Brauerei Schleicher mit angeschlossenem Gasthaus besteht seit der Gründung im Jahr 1880 durch den Gastwirt Andreas Schleicher.
Am 1. Oktober 1913 wurde Kaltenbrunn mit der Bahnstrecke Breitengüßbach–Dietersdorf an das Eisenbahnnetz angeschlossen. Als einziger Streckenbahnhof war er mit einem Ausweichgleis ausgestattet. Der Personenverkehr wurde am 28. September 1975 eingestellt, am 27. September 1981 erfolgte die Gesamtstilllegung.
1914 wurde ein neues Schulhaus mit zwei Klassenzimmern und einer Lehrerwohnung errichtet. Mit der Eröffnung einer neuen Schule in Bodelstadt wurde die Schule in Kaltenbrunn 1966 geschlossen. In dem Gebäude ist seit 1980 die Gemeindeverwaltung untergebracht.
1925 hatte das Dorf 287 Einwohner von denen 31 der römisch-katholischen und 256 der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche angehörten. Es gab 54 Wohnhäuser. Im Jahr 1987 hatte das Dorf 347 Einwohner und 94 Wohnhäuser mit 123 Wohnungen.
Die Wasserversorgung nahm 1957 den Betrieb auf, es folgte Bau einer Kanalisation. Die Ortsumgehung der Bundesstraße 4 wurde 1964 dem Verkehr übergeben. Von etwa 1973 bis 1985 wurde eine Flurbereinigung durchgeführt.
Am 1. Juli 1972 wurde der Landkreis Staffelstein aufgelöst und die Nachbarorte Herreth und Merkendorf wurden eingegliedert. Seitdem gehört Kaltenbrunn zum Landkreis Coburg. Im Zuge der bayerischen Gebietsreform verlor Kaltenbrunn am 1. Mai 1978 seine Selbstständigkeit als Gemeinde und wurde, wie seine Ortsteile, das Pfarrdorf Herreth und der Weiler Merkendorf, ein Gemeindeteil der Gemeinde Itzgrund. Sitz der Gemeindeverwaltung wurde Kaltenbrunn.
Die römisch-katholische Pfarrkirche St. Wolfgang wurde zwischen 1746 und 1749 in Anlehnung an Pläne von Johann Jakob Michael Küchel von Thomas Harra, Maurer- und Steinmetzmeister aus Ebern, und nach dessen Tod von Johann Tanzer errichtet. Es ist eine barocke Saalbaukirche mit einer Einturmfassade und einem eingezogenen Chor. Ein freistehender Hauptaltar mit Rokokotabernakel und eine reich ausgestaltete, barocke Kanzel mit Darstellungen von Moses und den Evangelisten schmückt den Innenraum.

Puerto de la Cruz

Géolocalisation sur la carte : Tenerife
Géolocalisation sur la carte : Îles Canaries
Géolocalisation sur la carte : Îles Canaries
Géolocalisation sur la carte : Espagne
Puerto de la Cruz est une commune de la province de Santa Cruz de Tenerife dans la communauté autonome des Îles Canaries en Espagne. Elle est située au nord de l’île de Tenerife.
Puerto de la Cruz est le grand centre touristique du nord de Tenerife. La ville forme avec les communes de La Orotava, Los Realejos et d’autres encore une agglomération de 140 000 habitants.

À l’origine Puerto de la Cruz était le port de la ville La Orotava qui se situe à l’arrière-pays. Lorsqu’en 1706 la ville de Garachico fut en partie ensevelie par la lave après une éruption volcanique, Puerto de la Cruz prit le relais et devint le port le plus important de la côte nord de l’île.
À la fin du XIXe siècle, les premiers touristes anglais découvrirent Puerto de la Cruz et à partir de 1950 la ville devint un important centre touristique.
Vieux port.
Vieux port.
Maison Casa de la Aduana.
Idole Guanche de Guatimac (Musée archéologique de Puerto de la Cruz).
Sur les autres projets Wikimedia :

Hapi (syn Horusa)

Hapi, czasem zapisywane jako Hapy, jest w religii starożytnego Egiptu imieniem jednego z czterech synów Horusa, przedstawianego w pogrzebowej literaturze jako chroniącego tron Ozyrysa w Podziemiu. Zazwyczaj wyobrażany jest z głową pawiana, zaś jego zadaniem jest ochrona płuc zmarłego, stąd częste przedstawienie jako głowy pawiana pełniącej rolę pokrywy kanopy do przechowania płuc. Z kolei Hapi chroniony jest przez Neftydę. Gdy jego wyobrażenie znajduje się na bocznej ścianie trumny, jest to zazwyczaj ściana zwrócona ku północy. W Trzecim Okresie Przejściowym zmieniła się praktyka mumifikowania i zmumifikowane organy wkładano na powrót do ciała, wówczas również amulet Hapi umieszczano wewnątrz ciała.
Zapis imienia bóstwa zawiera hieroglif uważany za mający związek ze sterowaniem łodzią, choć jego dokładne znaczenie nie jest znane. Z tego względu jego imię bywa łączone z nawigacją, choć wczesne odwołania nazywają go wielkim biegaczem, jak w Zaklęciu 521 z Tekstów Sarkofagów.
Jako jeden z czterech filarów Shu i jeden z czterech sterów niebios był kojarzony z Północą, i w ten sposób określony w Zaklęciu 148 Księgi umarłych.

HD 61005

HD 61005 is a G8Vk class star in the constellation of Puppis with an associated accretion disk that has helped Astronomers understand the process of planetary formation. The particle size and asymmetrical shape of the accretion cloud, have forced a re-evaluation of traditional models of planet formation.
Although being a yellow dwarf like the sun, HD 61005 is much younger at just 135 million years old, an extremely young age for stars. In this regard, the star retains a protoplanetary disk – the accumulation of the gas-dust matter, forming a planetary system. HD 61005 is located in the Local Bubble – a region with a low concentration of dust clouds.
HD 61005 is 115 light years from earth, has an apparent magnitude of 8.23 and a metallicity of 72.4% of the Sun. It is moving through the interstellar medium at a speed of 27.4 km/s relative to the Sun and is found in the night sky at right ascension 113.94248° and declination -32.20°.
In 2007, a team of astronomers announced the discovery of a protoplanetary disk around HD 61005. The disk has an unusual shape, which may be due to the influence of the dense regions of the interstellar medium. The researchers also suggest that the passage through these areas can affect the atmosphere of planets that form. The disc diameter and morphologically resembles a butterfly shape, so it was appropriate for the informal name. Analysis of the data did not confirm the presence of planets in the system.
Annoted Hubble photo of HD 61005

Gatsby (sandwich)

A Gatsby is a South African submarine sandwich typically sold as a foot-long sandwich sliced into four portions. It is a popular sandwich in the Western Cape province, with many fast food and takeaway restaurants, stores and food stands purveying them. One large sandwich may be shared among several people. The gatsby is also sometimes referred to as the nickname AK‑47, in part due to how it can be held in one’s arm in a similar manner to the firearm. It has been described as a “filling, budget meal”, a standard menu item in Cape Town corner stores, and as a significant part of the heritage and a cultural symbol of Cape Flats, where it originated from.
Gatsby usually consist of long bread rolls cut lengthwise and opened up to form a sort of cradle which is filled with various fillings. While the choice of filling in a gatsby varies widely depending on customer preference and vendor, one standard item is usually hot chips, i.e., French fries or slap chips (French fries with vinegar). Hot dog buns and roti flat bread are sometimes used, and it is typically prepared using a sauce, most commonly achar or piri piri. They are typically a large-sized sandwich, and have been described as suitable for sharing among several people.
Different varieties of gatsbys use meat ingredients such as chargrilled steak, masala steak, fresh or pickled fish, calamari, chicken, polony, curry, Vienna sausage, Russian sausage and eggs.

Gatsbys originated in the Cape Flats area of Cape Town, where people would often buy large rolls and fill them with whatever leftovers they had from the previous evening’s supper put in for lunch the next day.
The gatsby is traditionally made using foot-long rolls, referred to by bakers as “drumsticks rolls”, rather than the original hamburger roll popularised overseas, to enable easier filling of the sandwich. The original polony gatsby sandwich continues to be the most popular variant among customers as this is the cheapest form of the delicious meal.
The sandwich is named after The Great Gatsby, a 1925 novel written by American author F. Scott Fitzgerald. Nobody really knows when or how the concept came about (even though many falsely laid claim to be the originators because of its popularity) except that it originated in various factories in and around in the 70s. It is believed that the workers from factories in an around Cape Town would share lunches and thus created sandwiches from whatever they had for lunch that day. As the French loaf allowed for extra filling space, they would prefer to use these over tradition bread slices that way it could also be easier shared amongst co-workers. A gatsby is thus better enjoyed when shared and best served in its largest form.
Though nowadays the gatsby takes on all shapes, combinations and sizes ensuring that you stay filled for less with the most popular being a fresh foot long sandwich with French fries (also known as slap chips in Cape Town) with you taste of polony, Vienna, Russian, chicken, fish or steak. As the gatsby is large, filling and cheap meal this practice has carried on in modern times with the gatsby purveyed in full, half and quarter sizes.This practice of combining various combinations of food in a singular meal became popular all around Cape Town and continues to grow in its popularity even amongst the wealthier patrons.
A store in Cape Town, South Africa with signage for gatsby sandwiches
A personal-sized gatsby sandwich prepared with calamari and chips, being sold at a food stall for R45 (approximately USD $3.75)
In October 2013, an event in Cape Town occurred at a waterfront where chefs prepared a gatsby sandwich that was over 8 meters long. A focus of the event was, per its organizers, to create South Africa’s “first official heart-healthy Gatsby.” The sandwich was modified to increase fiber content and to lower sodium, saturated fat and total fat, making the sandwich more heart-healthy. Pharma Dynamics sponsored the event.

Dude Ranch (Album)

Dude Ranch ist das zweite Studioalbum der US-amerikanischen Rock-Band blink-182. Es erschien im deutschsprachigen Raum am 5. August 1997 bei MCA Records und war das erste Album der Band, das sich in den US-amerikanischen Album-Charts platzieren konnte.

Die Arbeiten am Album begannen im Jahre 1996, nachdem die Band einen neuen Vertrag mit dem Label MCA Records abgeschlossen hatte. Die meisten Stücke entstanden während der vorherigen Tournee. Die Aufnahmen begannen Ende 1996 in den Big Fish Studios in Encinitas, Kalifornien.
Für die Gestaltung des Covers war Victor Gastelum zuständig, um die Zeichnungen kümmerte sich Lou Beach. Das Cover zeigt einen Stier, der mit dem Hinterteil zum Betrachter steht und seinen Kopf dabei in Richtung des Betrachters dreht. Das Tier trägt eine Brandmarke mit dem Bandlogo. Der Hintergrund besteht aus einer Prärielandschaft, außerdem ist ein Holzschild mit dem Albumtitel zu sehen. Als Produzenten wählte man Mark Trombino, der vorher mit Jimmy Eat World zusammenarbeitete. Anfang 1997 waren die Aufnahmen abgeschlossen. Das Mastering fand im Bernie Grundman Mastering in Hollywood statt. Das Album wurde am 5. August 1997 veröffentlicht, als erste Single wurde Dammit ausgekoppelt.
Von Musikkritikern wurde das Album überwiegend positiv besprochen, andererseits wurde das Album nur von wenigen Kritikern bewertet.
Stephen Thomas Erlewine bewertet das Album bei Allmusic sehr positiv und vergibt 4,5 von 5 möglichen Sternen. Er schreibt, dass die Songwritingfähigkeiten der Band noch nicht ganz ausgereift seien, es im Vergleich zu Cheshire Cat aber schon deutlich besser seien. Trotzdem beschreibt Erlewine die Musik des Albums als sehr gut.
Auch bewertet das Album mit 4 von 5 möglichen Sternen als exzellent. Kritiker Channing Freeman meint, dass der Sound etwas Einzigartiges sei und man ihn nicht mit dem aktuellen Stil der Band vergleichen könne.
Das Album war das erste, das sich in den US-amerikanischen Charts platzieren konnte. Es konnte Platz 67 erreichen. Außerdem wurde es mit einer Platin-Schallplatte in den USA ausgezeichnet.
Mark Hoppus • Travis Barker
Tom DeLonge (bis 2015) • Scott Raynor (bis 1998)
Cheshire Cat • Dude Ranch • Enema of the State • Take Off Your Pants and Jacket • blink-182 • Neighborhoods
They Came to Conquer… Uranus • Lemmings / Going Nowhere • Dogs Eating Dogs
The Mark, Tom and Travis Show (The Enema Strikes Back!)
Greatest Hits • Icon